Compare
Up to six funds side by side, and how much of each is the same portfolio as the others. Overlap is Σ min(weight) over the stocks both hold, from the latest disclosures.
Overlap
share of the portfolio the two funds hold in common
| Nippon India Medium to Long Term | ICICI Prudential Medium to Long Term | |
|---|---|---|
| Nippon India Medium to Long Term | itself | 8% |
| ICICI Prudential Medium to Long Term | 8% | itself |
Most alike: Nippon India Medium to Long Term Fund and ICICI Prudential Medium to Long Term Fund share 8% of their portfolios. Two funds this different are doing different things; whether that is what you want is a separate question.
Side by side
record, cost, returns, drawdown, size
| Measure | Nippon India Medium to Long Term | ICICI Prudential Medium to Long Term |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Medium to Long Term | Medium to Long Term |
| Share of three-year stretches it beat its category P4 | 91% of 109 | 96% of 109 |
| Regular plan costs more than Direct by, a year P5 | 0.74% | 0.52% |
| Portfolio turned over a year P1 | not measured | not measured |
| Run by P7 | Vivek Sharma · 6.5 yrs | Manish Banthia · 2.7 yrs |
| 1-year return | 4.8% | 4.8% |
| 3 years p.a. | 6.7% | 7.1% |
| 5 years p.a. | 6.1% | 6.3% |
| Deepest fall (max drawdown) | −2.1% | −1.7% |
| Assets (AUM) | ₹358 Cr | ₹1,992 Cr |
| Disclosed history | 14 yrs | 13 yrs |
| Holdings · top ten weight | 18 · 87% | 52 · 49% |
Funds in different categories are not comparable on returns — a category error is the first thing the postulates refuse to make. Compare each to its own category on its fund page.